PAKISTAN: Kudos and props for winning the tournament. Considering what the nation has gone through, a great win for them. As always they show that when their backs are against the wall, they are at their best. Younis took a little away from the value of a WC win by writing off T20 as a ‘spectacle’. Great performances by Gul, Afridi and the man who seemed to come and change it all with his PP bowling Abdul Razzaq. So much for ICL being a haven for talentless players and has-beens. A+

SRI LANKA: Warriors to the end. Remained undefeated till the moment it mattered, similar to NZ in 92. SL will be relieved to know that their team is in good hands following a captaincy change. Exceeded expectation by making it past the 2nd round and was probably the 2nd best team overall in terms of performance throughout the tournament. A

SOUTH AFRICA: Best team heading into the semi finals by performance in addition to being a pre tournament favorite (tied with India). Lost again when the stakes were high but PAK was the better team that day. Probably a world class spinner away from being the number one threat to win. B

WEST INDIES: Surprisingly successful tournament along with PAK and SL. Good thing they got their after Gayle’s public view on T20 and other forms of the game. (Good to see someone with a high profile having the balls to speak out for T20). Obviously, the Stanford T20 tournaments did bring about some good in their cricket. A-

ENGLAND: Exited with some pride after an embarrassing opening loss to the Dutch. Defeated both the finalists (IND/PAK) from last world cup comprehensively before being taken out by a skilled SA and determined WI. They are more concerned about the Ashes anyways despite being the originators of the game as well as the format. C+

NEW ZEALAND: Thing may have been different with Ryder and Taylor healthy. Thrashed Scotland and Ireland and took SA to the limit but couldn’t keep up with the big winners PAK and SL at the end. C

INDIA: Disappointing tournament despite having probably the most talented T20 roster. Only a minnow basher by defeating Bangladesh and Ireland and losing unexpectedly to WI and ENG. Maybe cricket overkill after a long IPL season but the team did not seem in harmony as the 2007 championship team. D

IRELAND: Success by accomplishing what they set out to do. They gunned down Bangladesh for a second successive World cup and showed promising bowling efforts against PAK and SL. N. O’Brian is a class act and can hold his own against any other WK batsmen out there. B+

NETHERLANDS : Success by winning their first game against ENG. Probably too wrapped up with the RR when playing PAK instead of focusing the same way they did with ENG. Shows promise for growth of Cricket. B+

BANGLADESH : (No need to rehash. See any of the numerous threads available) F

AUSTRALIA: Disappointing tournament all around starting with Symonds’ unceremonious exit. Seems like Ponting just can’t get his arms around the format. Also missing a quality spinner like SA. A team consisting or retirees and out of radar (Gilchrist, Hayden, Warne, Hodge) probably would have brought success (possibly a championship)
C+.

SCOTLAND: Can take the batting performance against NZ back as something to savior which is more than something for BD and AUS. With support from ECB and along with IRE and NED, they can impact the limited overs arena (ODI/T20) in the upcoming years. B-

Murad

June 22, 2009, 09:57 AM

Very very poor gradings on some teams.

India D and Australida C+?

Australia didn't even win a single game and they got higher grade than India who have won 2? Care to explain how?

If Bangladesh gets a F, then Australia should get F too.

Raynman

June 22, 2009, 10:08 AM

Australia gets a C+ because they lost to two semifinalists. IND as a defending champion came in with higher expectations and failed to get a 2nd round win.

Bangladesh gets an F because they should have made the 2nd round with ease. Had NED or SCO made it the team they got in at the expense of would have also gotten an F

Imteaz

June 22, 2009, 10:40 AM

According to the explanation, England beat the Champion once, So they deserve something more.
How South Africa got B and West Indies got A-, when both of them are semifinalist? Because, South Africa lost to the Champion? Moreover, SA was unbeaten up to semifinal.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.banglacricket.com/alochona/ /><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P><P><FONT color=black><FONT face=<o:p></o:p>
When the Grade is dependent on the opponent than................I dont know what to say?

Raynman

June 22, 2009, 10:44 AM

But they also lost to Netherlands. They beat PAK in a must win situation where the game as not as critical to PAK. Plus they were the hosts.

Akib

June 22, 2009, 10:45 AM

Very confusing (and inconsistant) rankings. Scotland got to high, considering how much more help they get than other countries.

Australia should be a D, along with India. England should be a B- at least. They picked themselves up at least.

Nadim

June 22, 2009, 10:49 AM

Very very poor gradings on some teams.

India D and Australida C+?

Australia didn't even win a single game and they got higher grade than India who have won 2? Care to explain how?

If Bangladesh gets a F, then Australia should get F too.
:floor:right on bro:clap:

Imteaz

June 22, 2009, 10:55 AM

I think the grading is according to likings or disliking.

Raynman

June 22, 2009, 10:57 AM

According to the explanation, England beat the Champion once, So they deserve something more.
How South Africa got B and West Indies got A-, when both of them are semifinalist? Because, South Africa lost to the Champion? Moreover, SA was unbeaten up to semifinal.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.banglacricket.com/alochona/ /><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P><P><FONT color=black><FONT face=<o:p></o:p>
When the Grade is dependent on the opponent than................I dont know what to say?

If you're looking for Ranking look in the order of the teams not the grades.

This was based on results vs. expectations prior to the tournament, preparation (taking warm ups and IPL into account) and performance during the tournament.

SA has expected to be a finalist and WI wasn't expected to make the 2nd round. So I would say WI does deserve a better grade than SA.

Imteaz

June 22, 2009, 11:05 AM

Good Logic.

Raynman

June 22, 2009, 04:32 PM

Here is my take on the biggest winners and losers of the WC T20 tournament (in no particular order) besides the obvious ones that everyone will be talking about such as PAK and SL success, IND/AUS/BD disappointment, SA choking etc.
WINNERS:

1. ICL: Razzaq coming back and making a difference showed that the ICL players were not just a group of 2nd tier players and that IPL should not be the only option available for cricket players and fans alike. Of course ICL is pegged back now with the BCCI strong-arming and will have to rely on a court decision for their survival if they can financially last that long.

3. Chris Gayle: It would have been embarrassing for him to exit early in the tournament after not being pleased to give up T20 matches in the IPL for the WI short tour of ENG

4. The Associates: IRE making the super eight, NED winning the opening match and SCO giving NZ a scare in their opening match

5. Bollywood Spice: Could this restaurant get any more free advertising?

LOSERS:

1. Ashraful: Poor attitude and inability to grasp reality, the man has finally lost his captaincy and possibly his cemented position in the team.

2. 2009 WC vs. 2007 WC
a. No tight finishes (except ENG/NED & SA/NZ) in critical matches unlike the IND/PAK final
b. No Ties (IND/PAK in the first round)
c. No epic run chases like SA chasing down WI in the opening match
d. No astonishing individual achievements (other than Gul’s 5 for)
i. Century (Gayle in 2007, Dilshan came close in the semis)
ii. 6 sixes (Yuvraj vs. Broad)
iii. No hattricks (Lee vs. BAN)

3. T20 as a respected format
a. AUS & ENG were more worried about ashes
b. Younis calling it a ‘spectacle for the fans’ loss to ENG

4. IPL : Player forms in the IPL was not an indication of who was going to steal the spotlights at the WC

5. Brendon McCullum: A good tournament with the bat could have helped ease the hugely disappointing KKR season

Zunaid

June 27, 2009, 02:36 PM

Expanded form now a front page article:

Grading the 2009 T20 World Cup
Raihan Hannan

Raihan plays teacher and grades the performance of the teams in the recently concluded T20 World Cup. The grades are not just a reflection of the rankings but also took into account intangibles such as expectations, recent form, preparation, performance and results. http://www.banglacricket.com/alochona/../html/images/read_art.gif Read article » (http://banglacricket.com/html/article.php?item=498)

Nafi

June 27, 2009, 04:22 PM

Pakistan started horribly in the beginning. They dont deserve higher grades than SL and SA

Raynman

June 27, 2009, 04:49 PM

please read the article from the front page as it has been expanded to address many questions brought up in this thread.

Zeeshan

June 27, 2009, 08:16 PM

Just realized I didnt sign my name here. So most newbies who click the link from front page, wouldnt know who is the famous Gopal Bhar if I dont sign my name here. *pats on the back* So now that I have officially fulfilled my selfish needs:

Congratulation Raynman for your article! It was a nice read!

Zunaid

June 27, 2009, 09:02 PM

BC _is_ a site that is driven by the fans and so do not let others speak for you. We are always looking for articles that reflect the thoughts of us fans. If you have something that you feel would be appropriate as an article, do not hesitate to send it out way. You can send it to any of the the BC article editors (Miraz, Razab et al) or to the admins/mods and we will make sure someone listens :)